Filed 9/1/23 In re A.C. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re A.C., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

B325558

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 

19CCJP05685C

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Linda Sun, Judge. Conditionally affirmed

and remanded with directions.

Lori Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel, 

for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________
2

Mother appeals a juvenile court order terminating her 

parental rights to her son A.C. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, 

subd. (b)(1).)1 She contends the evidence was insufficient 

to support the court’s finding that the Los Angeles County 

Department of Children and Family Services (Department) 

conducted an adequate inquiry under state law (§ 224 et seq.) 

implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA

or Act) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). The record shows mother 

presented information to the court indicating her paternal 

grandfather was a registered member of an Indian tribe and 

received attendant benefits, although she did not know the tribe’s 

name. While the Department made efforts to interview maternal 

relatives to verify the information, it did not contact the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs or the State Department of Social Services 

for assistance in identifying the tribe, as required under section 

224.2, subdivision (e)(2)(B). Under these circumstances, we must 

conditionally affirm the juvenile court’s order and remand for 

further proceedings consistent with ICWA and our implementing 

state law.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The juvenile court took jurisdiction of A.C. (born 

November 2015) on sustained counts of neglect stemming from 

the parents’ abuse of methamphetamine and other narcotics. 

(§ 300, subd. (b).)2

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code; rule references are to the California Rules 

of Court. 

2 Father is not a party to this appeal.
3

The maternal grandmother and great-grandmother raised 

mother. Her parents had divorced when she was eight years old. 

Mother had a relationship with her father, but he passed away 

when she was 12 years old. Her only sibling is a half-brother 

on her father’s side.

Before the detention hearing, mother and father each 

filed a Parental Notification of Indian Status form (ICWA-020). 

Both parents declared they had no Indian ancestry as far as they 

knew.

On September 4, 2019, the juvenile court held the initial 

detention hearing. In addition to the parents, the maternal 

grandmother, great-grandmother, and great-aunt were present. 

After receiving the parents’ ICWA-020 forms and noting 

the parents reported no Indian ancestry, the juvenile court 

announced its tentative finding that there was no reason 

to believe A.C. was an Indian child, before asking the parties 

present if “[a]nyone wish[ed] to be heard.” No one objected 

to the finding. The court ordered the parents to keep the 

Department, their counsel, and the court aware of any 

new information relevant to possible ICWA status.

On November 27, 2019, the court held the adjudication 

hearing. The maternal relatives were present outside the 

courtroom waiting for mother, who had stepped away before 

the hearing began. The court asked counsel if there was any 

“further information regarding Indian ancestry from any party 

at this time?” Neither father’s nor mother’s counsel responded. 

The court reaffirmed it had no reason to believe A.C. was an 

Indian child, citing the parents’ denials of Indian ancestry 

on their ICWA-020 forms.
4

The Department maintained contact with the maternal 

grandmother and great-grandmother regarding mother’s 

progress on her case plan, until the court terminated the parents’ 

reunification services on March 11, 2021. The maternal 

great-grandmother later passed away.

In advance of the pending section 366.26 hearing, the 

Department reported that, on May 11, 2022, mother had again 

denied having Indian ancestry in her family.

On April 19, 2022, mother filed a section 388 petition 

requesting modification of the court’s order terminating her 

reunification services. Mother declared she had since enrolled 

in a drug treatment program and submitted to drug testing. 

The juvenile court set a hearing on the petition.

On May 23, 2022, the court held a hearing on mother’s 

section 388 petition. Mother did not appear. Her counsel, 

however, reported that mother “recently . . . found out that 

her grandfather on her father’s side is a member of a tribe,

and she believes him to be actually receiving benefits.” Mother 

had advised counsel that she planned to contact “some relatives 

to obtain the additional information,” but he had not been able 

to reach her since their conversation a week earlier. Counsel 

did not know the maternal great-grandfather’s name or the 

name of the tribe. The court ordered the Department to contact 

mother, to reinterview all maternal relatives regarding mother’s 

ICWA claim, and to provide necessary notices to the tribes before 

the next hearing.

At the court’s direction, mother’s counsel filed a new 

ICWA-020 form, declaring, “Mother has information that her 

grandmother and [the] great grandfather on mother’s father’s 
5

side were registered members of a native American tribe.” With 

respect to the name of the tribe, the form stated, “Unknown.”

On June 2, 2022, the Department reached mother. Mother 

reported, “ ‘I just found out that my dad’s grandmother was 

half Indian.’ ” She provided her grandfather’s name (Roberto T.), 

but said he was “on vacation” and she did not know how to reach 

him. She had a paternal cousin who lived nearby and might 

know more, but she did not have contact information for him or 

any of her paternal relatives. Mother said she “would be doing 

an unannounced visit” in a few days to inquire about her possible 

Indian heritage and would contact the Department on June 6, 

2022. Mother did not contact the dependency investigator.

On June 8, 2022, the dependency investigator left a 

voicemail message on mother’s cell phone, asking mother to 

contact the investigator about her family’s Indian heritage. 

Mother did not respond to the message. The investigator 

attempted to contact mother twice more the same week and 

received no response. She was unable to leave a message 

because mother’s voicemail box was full. The investigator 

sent mother a text message, but again received no response.

On June 21, 2022, the Department filed a report detailing

its efforts to investigate mother’s claimed Indian heritage. 

The report stated mother had “failed to provide any information 

to submit an inquiry regarding her claims of American Indian 

Heritage”; however, it contained no record of the Department 

contacting the Bureau of Indian Affairs or State Department 

of Social Services with the maternal great-grandfather’s name

or information about the benefits mother claimed he received.

Mother did not appear at the June 28, 2022 hearing. 

The court observed mother had not provided sufficient 
6

information for the Department to investigate her ICWA claim. 

Mother’s counsel said he had the names of some family members. 

He also expected to receive more information, but he had

not heard back from mother. He still did not have contact 

information for the maternal great-grandfather but said he 

would provide it as soon as he received it from mother.

The juvenile court ordered the Department to “follow up 

with” the individuals mother’s counsel identified and “to comb 

through all the earlier reports to identify additional family 

members” who had not been interviewed regarding ICWA.

Mother’s counsel provided the names of two relatives

and their dates of birth. In a subsequent report to the court, 

the Department noted both relatives were deceased. The report 

did not document the relative’s relationship to mother or what 

efforts the Department made to use the relatives’ information 

to investigate A.C.’s possible ICWA status. The report stated 

only that “both relatives were deceased, therefore, [the 

dependency investigator] was unable to interview [them].”

From July 12 to July 18, 2022, the dependency investigator 

made three attempts to contact mother. Mother did not answer 

her phone, her voicemail box was still full, and she did not 

respond to the investigator’s text messages or otherwise 

communicate with the Department.3

3 On July 22, 2022, the juvenile court ordered the 

Department to interview the paternal grandfather and uncle 

regarding ICWA. The paternal grandparents reported father’s 

family did not have Indian heritage, both in an interview with 

the dependency investigator and when questioned by the court 

at a subsequent hearing. Mother does not challenge the court’s 

ICWA finding with respect to father’s family.
7

On September 7, 2022, the Department submitted a new 

report in advance of the section 366.26 hearing. The report 

detailed the dependency investigator’s efforts to contact mother 

and to develop relevant information regarding A.C.’s possible 

Indian heritage. The Department maintained mother and the 

maternal grandmother had failed to provide the “additional 

information” needed to submit an ICWA inquiry and 

recommended the court find insufficient information to believe 

A.C. was an Indian child. The report did not indicate that the 

Department had contacted the Bureau of Indian Affairs or 

State Department of Social Services for assistance identifying 

the maternal great-grandfather’s possible tribe.

Mother appeared telephonically for the section 366.26 

hearing. Her counsel argued she had a beneficial relationship 

with A.C. worth preserving and she had consistently visited with 

the child, except when mother was in a resident drug treatment 

program and during a period when she had COVID-19. Mother’s 

counsel did not address the Department’s ICWA

recommendation.

The juvenile court found there was no reason to believe 

A.C. was an Indian child, explaining: “On May 11th of 2022, 

the mother continues to deny that she has any American Indian 

heritage, but a few weeks later on May 23rd, she filed an updated 

[ICWA-]020 form on the day of the [section] 388 petition hearing 

indicating that [the] maternal grandmother and her greatgrandfather [sic] on her father’s side were registered members 

of a tribe. [¶] The Department has followed up with her relatives 

as documented in the most recent [section 366.]26 report. The 

Department contacted the mother and the maternal grandmother 

and left multiple messages in July and received no response. The 
8

court notes that the maternal great grandmother has recently 

passed, and the Department cannot follow-up with her. [¶] So 

we have no response from the mother’s side of the family with 

regard to her American Indian heritage. However, throughout 

the life of this case, starting from the detention, the mother did 

file her initial [ICWA-]020 form which indicated that she has 

none. Until May 11th, she continued to deny American Indian 

heritage.”

Thus, the court found the Department had made “diligent 

efforts in following up with the case participants and extended 

family members,” and there was “no sufficient reason to believe 

that there is Indian ancestry in this case.” The court denied 

mother’s request to make an exception to the preferred plan 

for adoption and terminated mother’s parental rights.

DISCUSSION

Mother argues the Department failed to satisfy its 

statutory duty under ICWA to make further inquiry regarding 

A.C.’s possible Indian heritage after she informed the court 

she had discovered information indicating her great-grandmother 

and grandfather (A.C.’s great-great-grandmother and greatgrandfather) on mother’s father’s side were registered members 

of a federally recognized Indian tribe. (See § 224.2, subd. (d)(3).) 

Specifically, mother maintains the inquiry was inadequate 

because the Department (1) failed to interview maternal relatives 

about the family’s Indian heritage; and (2) failed to contact the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs and State Department of Social Services 

for assistance identifying the tribes in which A.C. might be 

eligible for membership. Due to these shortcomings, mother 

contends the juvenile court erred in prematurely finding 

ICWA did not apply to this proceeding. We agree the inquiry 
9

was deficient to the extent the Department failed to contact 

relevant government agencies for assistance in determining 

the validity of mother’s ICWA claim.

“Where, as here, the juvenile court finds ICWA does not 

apply to a child, ‘[t]he finding implies that . . . social workers and 

the court did not know or have a reason to know the children 

were Indian children and that social workers had fulfilled their 

duty of inquiry.’ ” (In re J.S. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 678, 688

(J.S.), italics added; accord In re D.S. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1041, 

1050 [“[t]he juvenile court may . . . make a finding that ICWA 

does not apply because the Agency’s further inquiry and due 

diligence was ‘proper and adequate’ but no ‘reason to know’

whether the child is an Indian child was discovered”]; see § 224.2, 

subd. (i)(2).) “ ‘[W]e review the juvenile court’s ICWA findings 

under the substantial evidence test, which requires us to 

determine if reasonable, credible evidence of solid value 

supports the court’s order. [Citations.] We must uphold 

the court’s orders and findings if any substantial evidence, 

contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them, and we resolve 

all conflicts in favor of affirmance.’ ” (In re D.F. (2020) 55 

Cal.App.5th 558, 565 (D.F.).)

“ICWA reflects a congressional determination to protect 

American Indian children and to promote the stability and 

security of Indian tribes and families.” (In re Josiah T. (2021) 

71 Cal.App.5th 388, 401 (Josiah T.), citing 25 U.S.C. § 1902.) 

To that end, ICWA establishes unique standards for the removal 

and placement of Indian children, including special procedural 

rules to determine whether an Indian child is involved in the 

proceeding. (See 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.)
10

The juvenile court and county welfare agency have “an 

affirmative and continuing duty to inquire” whether a child 

subject to a section 300 petition may be an Indian child. (§ 224.2, 

subd. (a); D.F., supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p. 566.) “This continuing 

duty can be divided into three phases: the initial duty to inquire, 

the duty of further inquiry, and the duty to provide formal 

ICWA notice.” (D.F., at p. 566; Josiah T., supra, 71 Cal.App.5th 

at p. 402.) The agency must document its investigation and

provide a detailed description of all inquiries undertaken. 

(Rule 5.481(a)(5).)

The duty to make an initial inquiry is triggered once a

child is removed from parental custody. (In re Ezequiel G. (2022) 

81 Cal.App.5th 984, 998.) If a child is placed into the temporary 

custody of a county welfare agency, the agency must ask “the 

child, parents, legal guardian, Indian custodian, extended family 

members, others who have an interest in the child, and the party 

reporting child abuse or neglect, whether the child is, or may be, 

an Indian child and where the child, the parents, or Indian 

custodian is domiciled.” (§ 224.2, subd. (b).) Additionally, at 

each participant’s first appearance in the dependency proceeding, 

the court must ask whether the participant knows or has reason 

to know the child is an Indian child. (Id., subd. (c).)

The court and the agency must make “further inquiry” 

if either has “reason to believe” an Indian child is involved. 

(§ 224.2, subd. (e).) “There is reason to believe a child involved 

in a proceeding is an Indian child whenever the court, social 

worker, or probation officer has information suggesting that 

either the parent of the child or the child is a member or may 

be eligible for membership in an Indian tribe. Information 

suggesting membership or eligibility for membership includes, 
11

but is not limited to, information that indicates, but does not 

establish, the existence of one or more of the grounds for reason 

to know [the child is an Indian child].” (Id., subd. (e)(1).) Those 

grounds include, among other things, when “[a]ny participant 

in the proceeding . . . informs the court that [he or she] has 

discovered information indicating that the child is an Indian 

child.” (Id., subd. (d)(3).)

Our state law establishes steps the court and the agency

must take in “further inquiry,” including, but not limited to, 

interviewing parents and extended family members and 

notifying the Bureau of Indian Affairs and any tribes “that 

may reasonably be expected to have information regarding 

the child’s membership, citizenship status, or eligibility.” 

(§ 224.2, subd. (e)(2)(A)–(C); see also rule 5.481(a)(4).) We 

are concerned here with the statutory mandate to notify 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

“When there is reason to believe the child is an Indian 

child, further inquiry is necessary to help the court, social 

worker, or probation officer determine whether there is reason 

to know a child is an Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (e)(2).) 

To that end, our state law directs the county welfare agency

to “[c]ontact[ ] the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the State 

Department of Social Services for assistance in identifying 

the names and contact information of the tribes in which the 

child may be a member, or eligible for membership in” and 

for assistance in “contacting the tribes and any other person 

that may reasonably be expected to have information regarding 
12

the child’s membership status or eligibility.” (Id., subd. (e)(2)(B), 

italics added.)4 

Consistent with the statute’s plain language, our courts 

have construed this directive to require the county welfare 

agency “to obtain all possible information about the minor’s 

potential Indian background and provide that information 

to the relevant tribe or, if the tribe is unknown, to the [Bureau 

of Indian Affairs].” (In re Louis S. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 622, 

630, italics added; In re A.W. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 655, 663 

[“if the court ‘knows or has reason to know that an Indian child 

is involved,’ notice of the pending proceeding and the right to

intervene must be sent to the tribe or the [Bureau of Indian 

Affairs] if the tribal affiliation is not known”]; accord Josiah T., 

supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 405.) This interpretation accords

with federal law. (See 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a).)5

4 Rule 5.481(a)(4) similarly provides: “If the social worker, 

probation officer, licensed adoption agency, adoption service 

provider, investigator, or petitioner knows or has reason to know 

or believe that an Indian child is or may be involved, that person 

or entity must make further inquiry as soon as practicable by: 

. . . [c]ontacting the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the California 

Department of Social Services for assistance in identifying 

the names and contact information of the tribes in which the 

child may be a member or eligible for membership.”

5 “In any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where 

the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child 

is involved, the party seeking the foster care placement of, or 

termination of parental rights to, an Indian child shall notify 

the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child’s tribe, by 

registered mail with return receipt requested, of the pending 

proceedings and of their right of intervention. If the identity or 

location of the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe cannot 
13

The Department does not dispute the duty of further 

inquiry was triggered when mother notified the juvenile court

that she had discovered information indicating her greatgrandmother and grandfather on her father’s side were 

registered members of an Indian tribe. (See § 224.2, subd. (d)(3); 

cf. In re J.L. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 913, 923 [no further inquiry 

duty where the mother “did not know whether she had American 

Indian heritage of any kind, did not know the names of the 

relatives who might have had such heritage, and had heard 

only a ‘general or vague’ reference to possible heritage”].) The 

juvenile court also plainly found the duty had been triggered, 

as it ordered the Department to reinterview mother’s extended 

relatives regarding the family’s possible tribal membership 

and to provide required notices to the tribes consistent with 

the mandates of section 224.2, subdivision (e)(2).

Notwithstanding the court’s order, there is no record 

of the Department “[c]ontacting the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

and the State Department of Social Services for assistance 

in identifying the names and contact information of the tribes 

in which the child may be a member, or eligible for membership.” 

be determined, such notice shall be given to the Secretary [of the 

Interior] in like manner, who shall have fifteen days after receipt 

to provide the requisite notice to the parent or Indian custodian 

and the tribe. No foster care placement or termination of 

parental rights proceeding shall be held until at least ten days 

after receipt of notice by the parent or Indian custodian and 

the tribe or the Secretary.” (25 U.S.C. § 1912(a), italics added; 

see also 25 U.S.C. § 1a [Secretary of Interior authorized 

to delegate duties to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and 

Commissioner is authorized to delegate to any assistant 

commissioner or officer of the Bureau of Indian Affairs].)
14

(§ 224.2, subd. (e)(2)(B).) While the Department’s reports 

document repeated attempts to reinterview mother and her

relatives, those reports are entirely silent regarding any other 

efforts to identify or notify the tribes that might have information 

regarding A.C.’s possible eligibility for membership. The 

respondent’s brief is similarly silent concerning this latter aspect 

of the further inquiry requirement, noting only that mother’s 

most recent ICWA-020 form listed the name of her paternal 

relatives’ tribe as “Unknown.” But the fact that the family’s 

possible tribal affiliations were unknown was precisely what 

made the need to contact the Bureau of Indian Affairs “for 

assistance in identifying the names and contact information 

of the tribes” so critical. (Ibid.) Because the Department did 

not fulfill its statutorily mandated duty to contact the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, the juvenile court’s ICWA finding was premature 

and erroneous. (See Josiah T., supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 408

[“the court may not find that ICWA does not apply when the 

absence of evidence that a child is an Indian child results from 

a [county welfare agency] inquiry that is not proper, adequate, 

or demonstrative of due diligence”].)

As the Department does not address the failure to contact 

the relevant agencies, it also does not attempt to show the error 

was harmless. For our part, we cannot independently find 

harmless error in this case. According to mother’s counsel, 

mother had information indicating her paternal grandfather was 

a registered member of an Indian tribe and he received attendant 

benefits. Whether this is true or not, we can reasonably assume

the Bureau of Indian Affairs might have been able to verify the 

claim if the Department had contacted the agency with mother’s 

grandfather’s name and other information mother provided. 
15

(See, e.g., 25 U.S.C. § 13 [“The Bureau of Indian Affairs, under 

the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior, shall direct, 

supervise, and expend such moneys as Congress may from time 

to time appropriate, for the benefit, care, and assistance of the 

Indians throughout the United States.”]; Morton v. Ruiz (1974) 

415 U.S. 199, 204, 211–212 [evidence of family’s close economic 

and social ties to tribe required invalidation of Bureau of Indian 

Affairs rule which denied federal benefits to Indian family 

who lived off of the tribal reservation]; cf. J.S., supra, 62 

Cal.App.5th at pp. 684, 689–690 [absent information establishing

“specific geographic area of possible ancestry origin,” contacting 

Bureau of Indian Affairs would have been “idle act” where 

grandmother reported her “family was ‘of Mexican descent’ ” 

and only information regarding possible Indian heritage was 

ancestry.com result indicating “ ‘approximately 54% Native 

American lineage/heritage’ ” covering “ ‘ethnic origins’ from 

North America and South America, ‘[s]tretching from Alaska 

to the tip of Argentina’ ”].)

Accordingly, we must conditionally affirm the order 

terminating parental rights and remand with directions to

the juvenile court to order the Department to perform an 

investigation consistent with the law and this decision, including 

contacting the Bureau of Indian Affairs for assistance in 
16

identifying the tribe or tribes in which A.C. may be eligible 

for membership.

6

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights 

is conditionally affirmed. The case is remanded to the juvenile 

court to order the Department to comply immediately with the 

inquiry provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 224.2. 

After ensuring the Department has complied with the inquiry, 

and, if applicable, notice provisions of ICWA and related 

California law, the juvenile court shall determine whether 

ICWA applies. If the court determines ICWA does not apply, 

the order terminating parental rights shall remain in effect. 

6 While remanding this matter to the juvenile court will 

allow the Department to make another attempt to interview 

mother and the available maternal relatives, there should be 

no confusion about mother’s obligation to cooperate with the 

Department’s investigative efforts. As we recently explained, 

“[a]lthough it is well established that the duty to develop 

information bearing on whether a child is an Indian child 

‘rests with the court and the Department, not the parents or 

members of the parents’ families’ [citation], in most cases the 

court and [the Department] cannot satisfy this duty without 

the participation of the parents. While we believe it reasonable 

in many cases to require [the Department] to follow up on leads 

provided by the parents, we cannot ask the agency to intuit the 

names of unidentified family members or to interview individuals 

for whom no contact information has been provided.” (In re Q.M.

(2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1082.)
17

If the court determines ICWA does apply, it shall vacate its order 

terminating parental rights and proceed consistent with ICWA 

and related state law.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EGERTON, J.

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

ADAMS, J.